If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There are those who would view such a situation as an obligation on my part. Their logic is that by not sharing, I am guaranteeing the death of someone else. I don't agree with that logic, and neither do you, but it is the basis of much of our tax policy, which treats those who have a resource as having an obligation to share it so that those who lack it will not be left without.

Has our right to control our own bodies been impeached when our quality of life is unaffected by an action? This is the basis of a progressive tax policy and whether this is shared or devoted to a single source such as the military and/or the operation of basic government is irrelevant...the basis of the policy is the same; it is still progressive.

My question to you is specifically with respect to our right to control our bodies vs. another's right to life. And yes, both of us both of us side with our right to control our own bodies but wouldn't religious etiquette and values lend itself towards the right to life? I submit that the answer is yes and herein lies the basic weakness when relying solely on religious values as our guide...they do not lead us to the correct set of values for a nation based on maximizing individual freedom.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

On the contrary, the Progressives thought that eugenics was consistent with natual laws of evolution, and to an extent, they were correct. One can select for specific traits and breed out those members of a species that lack them. Our history of animal domestication proves this. The science of eliminating traits that were deemed undesirable was not illogical, but when you apply the practices of culling and selective breeding to people, you get evil on a massive scale. Logic only works in that context if you value freedom over coercion and see life as having value in and of itself, rather than only being of value if it advances the species as a whole.

The point you are missing is that eugenics is not the sole domain of progressiveness. There was nothing progressive in our breeding of slaves to achieve the most suitable workers for hard labor but they follow the exact premise you are applying. And there is nothing in progressiveness that predicates genetics over our right to control our own bodies. Our right to control our own bodies forms the basis of all freedom and no where does logic lead us to surrender that right based on genetic traits else progressive would have been against any freeing of the slaves and/or social equality. Yet this is not the case is it. It is not the progressive who stood nor now stands against social equality.

And one other point to make here: progressiveness is but a single trait of liberalism. The philosophy behind liberalism is rationalism and the basis of rationalism is logic. The beauty of logic is that it can always be questioned and it is because we can question that we can avoid the traps of the conservative irrationalist whose edict is not to question values handed to them by their gods.

And when we look at history it is when we cannot question that the weak fall victim to the strong...

Originally Posted by Odysseus

How does placing the monument make them the law of the land, any more than having a statue of Justicia makes the Roman legal code the law of the land?

If there is no purpose behind its placement then none...

Originally Posted by Odysseus

The Supreme Court often interprets laws in ways that leave sane people in shock. They have interpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause to be applicable to grain grown for personal consumption on a family farm. They have interpreted language in a Civil Rights Act that specifically bans racial discrimination to permit it, provided the right race is discriminated against. They have banned capital punishment as unconstitutional, even though the Constitution specifically mentions it in the context of legally sanctioned punishments, and then subsequently reversed themselves. They interpreted the 14th Amendment as permitting segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson) and then reversed themselves in Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court's power of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court, in a massive usurpation of power.

Whether we are shocked at the supreme courts rulings is irrelevant...they are the rule of law and here the supreme court has ruled that where religious texts are held together as examples of secular law they are permissible and where they are placed individually they are banned. And this should not be a surprise since this is very much in line with our founding principles on religious freedom. What goes very much against our founding principles is the dominance of a single religious text or symbol over others..

Originally Posted by Odysseus

In the case of the Ten Commandments, which applied to the tribal culture of the Hebrews, a child was presumed to know his/her parents. They had obligations towards their children, and the children had obligations to their parents. Given several generations of slavery in Egypt, those obligations had been eroded. Children could be separated from parents at the whim of the slave owner and the elderly were not provided for when they were no longer of value as slaves. Thus, the basic family structures were destroyed and needed restoration. That is the basis of the Commandment.

And none of this has anything to do with me and millions like me. This is the point...other than as an example of secular law they are largely irrelevant to our Rule of Law. And where they do apply there is an equally strong argument that they are based on natural law derived from logic.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Parenthood is far more than biological happenstance. Parents raise children, nurture them, see them to adulthood and provide love, protection and guidance as long as they are able to do so. In return for that, children provide for their parents as they age. If that is not your experience, you have my deepest sympathy, but it is the norm for most of us.

We have a divorce rate of 50% and climbing and with two parents working to earn a living, children today are just as likely to raise themselves as to be raised by their parents. This is the norm for most of us not the love, protection, guidance, and eventual reciprocation you express.